I believe that some steam locomotives had equipment that would clean the rails – I think by applying water or steam. I’ve seen references to this being used to remove traction sand from the rails after the driving wheels had passed over it. I haven’t seen any references to cleaning rails in front of the driving wheels; and I presume that the application of moisture in front of the driving wheels would reduce tractive effort.
I would be interested in any information about steam-locomotive rail cleaning – either in front or behind the driving wheels.
It would be news to me. I haven’t heard of such a thing, but…it is plausible. I would think a railroad would rather its sand, pulverized already by passing trains or not, is going to provide traction for some time for successive locomotives, so cleaning the rails doesn’t seem like a necessary thing.
I expect that the theory behind removing sand after the passage of steam-locomotive driving wheels would be to reduce the rolling resistance of the body of the train – basically the same theory that’s behind applying top-of-rail lubrication behind the wheels of the trailing unit in a head-end consist of diesel locomotives.
I wonder if this “rail cleaning” device is actually a blowdown pipe/muffler. A person uninformed on steam locomotive technology might assume such when observing a blowdown event.
I know I have heard mention of that washing practice somewhere, but maybe only one mention of it. And it was explained as being a way to reduce the rolling friction that the sand would have on the rolling stock behind the locomotive, as Jay mentioned.
The only benefit to ‘Steam Cleaning’ rail would be in territories that have a high incidence of leaves building up on tracks in the Fall. Wet leaves on the rail diminsh the pulling capacity of a locomotive as well as hindering the braking abilities of the train. A little high pressure ‘dry’ steam would do wonders in cleaning leaves off tracks.
Yes they did exist. The theory being that removing the sand from the rail would reduce rolling friction for the rest of the train. To my knowledge this reason is what they were used for. Whether rail washers were also used to clean environmental rail fouling (dirt, oil, leaves, etc), not sure, however this would necessitate placing the washer in front of the drivers.
From the set of UP engineering drawings both series of the Big Boy locomotives were built with them. Initially the washers consisted of a two nozzles (flattened ends of 1/2" pipe to form a orifice ~1/8" x 1.5") placed behind the last driving wheels 2" above and perpendicular to the rails. They were fed saturated steam from the steam turrets, 300psi.
Later in 1954 the layout was changed with the nozzles placed behind the last wheels of the trailing truck. Nozzles were of the same design, however they were angled to the rail at about 30 degrees pointing to the rear. The drawings make note of the need for centering the nozzles on the rails and to ensure the nozzles & piping is securely fastened to eliminate vibration & misalignment.
How widespread rail washer usage was, I don’t know. I do not have all my references with me at this time.
I’ll second that they did exist. I can’t find it right now, but I remember reading in one of my railroad books about a person who patented such a device - the story was that another mechanic on a different railroad submitted a patent application at the same time, and the patent rights were split east and west. How true that is on the patent, I can’t be sure - hopefully I can find the proper reference to post here sometime this week. At any rate, the idea was that the jet of steam washed foreign debris off the railhead, which then had almost as much traction as dry rail - or at least more than rail contaminated by oil, grease, tannic acid from leaves, grasshoppers, et al.
This begs the question of how well it worked. I think the fact that we are all more familiar with sanders than rail washers answers that question. I strongly suspect that even though a steam-cleaned rail might provide more traction than a contaminated rail, a lightly sanded rail still provides even more traction than the steam-cleaned rail. But that is just my guess.
One other note, any student of shay locomotives knows about the evolving problems that Lima had with the front wheelset climbing the rail on curves when pulling hard. In additon to other changes (notably changes in the “phasing” of the driveshafts & universal joints), they also added pipes to drip water in front of the first wheelset. Although this is similar to the steam-cleaning arrangement, its purpose was to drip water to lubricate the flange of the first wheelset to deter it from climbing the rail under the aforementioned circumstances, it was not intended to be a rail-washer for traction enhancement.
So, according to what has been described, the rail washers existed in two different types of application. One washed ahead of the engine to remove leaves, oil, etc., so those contaminants did not degrade traction; and the other washed behind the drivers to remove the traction sand so that it did not produce rolling resistance to the rolling stock of the train. I wonder if any locomotives were set up with both systems.
I would imagine that washing ahead of the locomotive would not necessarily replace the use of sand, although it might in certain circumstances. I can also imagine that removing the sand behind the drivers by the use of high pressure steam might accentuate the cloud of swirling grit that the could have an abrasive effect on the running gear of the following cars of the train.
Interesting discussion on rail cleaning, especially on traction sand removal. My question is, would removing the sand from the rails after the locomotive has passed really have made all that much of a difference to to rolling resistance of the rest of the consist? Would leaving it on the rails have made that much of a difference? It seems to me the sand would have only been applied briefly to aid starting or to aid traction on grades. In the general scheme of things there wouldn’t have been a “carpet” of it for any great length.
To clarify, the only rail washer’s that I’m familiar with are the ones used for sand removal placed behind the driving wheels. I am curious as to their benefit, ie how much was the rolling resistance reduced for the rolling stock with clean rails vs just leaving the sand on. Intuitively, I would guess most of the sand would only really affect the first five rail cars since it would be crushed & knocked off the rail by all the wheels.
Anyone know of actual test data being performed? From an economic point of view, they had to have a benefit otherwise what was the point of paying for and maintaining the device. Furthermore, I would assume that washing the rails of sand would only really be beneficial on systems with steep grades because the resistance due to gravity is dominate. Each 1% grade produces 20 lbs per ton of car weight in resistance, for example 4500 gross tons of train on a 1.5% grade requires 135,000 lbs of tractive effort just to overcome gravity. Any reduction in total train rolling resistance would help.
Regarding the use of steam to clean rails ahead of the drivers, someone else would have to provide some information.
Hi, I have a video showing NKP 765 running through New River Gorge. Engineer Rich Melvin uses the rail washers during the trip and does indeed confirm that it is used to remove sand from the rails once the loco passes over it. It reduces the friction from the rest of the train. As for washing rails for leaf/dirt removal, here in NJ, NJ Transit has the “Aqua Train” which is a high pressure power washer to remove residue from the rails. This usually operates during off peak hours so that commuter trains, especially MU cars, can stop at stations and climb grades properly. The “Aqua Train” is not self propelled. It is pushed by diesels. Metro-North also uses a similar device. I have been on trains that hit wet leaves at stations. One train I was on slid 7 car lengths past the platform and had to back up to platfform the cars. The “Aqua Train” eliminates problems like this.
I wonder if the benefit was more in regards to rail and wheel wear, having a bunch of wheels traveling over sand sounds like a good way to wear down both wheels and rail.
Had them on 1702 on the Great Smoky Mountain. Lots of tight curves. Don’t know if it really helped not having to drag the cars through the sand, but we thought it did.
WRT steam locomotive rail cleaning, ex-Canadian Pacific G-5a Pacific No. 1201, belonging to the Canada Museum of Science and Technology, was equipped with “rail washers” that were mounted ahead of the leading truck on its tender. The “rail washers” were installed when the locomotive was restored to operating service in the early 1970s. The “rail washers” received water by opening the injector overflow valve. The 1201 was restored for excursion service between the Museum in Ottawa, Ontario, and the community of Wakefield, Quebec, located at mile 20 of Canadian Pacific’s Maniwaki Subdivision. The Maniwaki Subdivision, like many resource-based branch lines, was built following the path of least resistance and was noted for several steep grades and numerous tight curves. The washers were intended to perform two functions - knock off sand if it was required to provide traction for the locomotive and to eliminate/reduce the wheel squealing noise as 1201 and her train of heavy weight coaches went through the many curves of the Maniwaki Subdivision. 1201’s last trip up the pike was in September of 1985 and she was last under steam in October of 1990. The Maniwaki Sub. was abandoned in 1985 but the first 20-miles re-emerged as the Hull, Chelsea and Wakefield Railway, a tourist operation featuring ex-Swedish National Railways 2-8-0 No. 909, beginning in 1992, carrying roughly 50,000 passengers a year. Following a major storm on June 23, 2011 that caused several serious washouts, operations on the HCW have been suspended for the 2011 season.
It should be noted that some of the operating crews were not too keen on 1201’s rail washers. They were not particularly fond of dumping good tender water on the ground given that is purpose was to respond to the locomotive’s needs. Not to worry, however, 1201’s tender could hold 8,000 gallons (Imperial), more than enough to make the trip and with ample water to spare.
This is a very interesting discussion, but, one thing has been totally overlooked. That is, cleaning switch frogs, points and auto crossing guard rails. The BEDT ( Brookly Eastern District Terminal) railroad used a pipe in front and back of the drivers on their switchers (no pilot or trailing trucks) to clear the accumulated ice and snow from these locations. Their railroad was located on the shores of the East River and also did street running in NYC. Thus a lot of ice in the auto crossings and in the switch frogs. A close look at BEDT #16 at our museum (www.rmli.org) shows these pipes.
OK, I found this reference to the rail washer in one of my books, and it is somewhat different than what I remembered. The book is “The Cloud-Climbing Railroad” by Dorothy Jensen Neal. This is an excerpt from the book - not my intent to infringe on the copyright, just a clarification of the details of the rail-washer:
“Engineer Jim Riddle invented the rail washer, used to keep the tracks clean. A pipe connected to the boiler carried water in front of the pony trucks. When valves were opened, this hot water wet the track. A stream of sand was them blown onto the track. If necessary, a second stream of water behind the engine washed off the sand, lubricating the rail so the cars would not derail. When the company would not buy his invention, Riddle removed it. Proof of its value appeared daily and soon the company bought the patent for $1500. By that time, another engineer, F.M. Delap, had perfected the same invention. Ridle received the franchise for the western part of the country only, while the other inventor reaped benefits east of the Mississippi River and the honor of having the invention named the DeLap Rail Washer.”
So from this passage, it appears that the rail washer really just helped the sand stick to the wet rail and then washed it off after the engine passed. I seem to remember another reference to a rail washer in my books, I’ll keep looking and see if I can find it.